Strawman arguments?

[DaveDodo007]

I'm being told that my arguments against feminism on rationalskepticism are strawman arguments and this is being used to stifle the disscussion.

My arguments against feminism are twofold:

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

As a split off from the above argument if I'm not allowed to judge feminists on what they say, do, write, act and behave then what criterion am I allowed to judge feminism on.

I don't care if you think feminism is the best thing since sliced bread or my arguments are shit, I just want your opinion on whether they can be classed as strawman arguments.

[mistermack]

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

With a strawman, you produce an argument that the opposing side are supposed to be making, and then destroy it. But it's usually a false representation of the opposing position, that nobody is actually making. As far as I can see, you haven't misrepresented anybody's actual argument.
But you could be accused of misrepresenting their position by describing their views as misandric.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

Well, that could be construed as a strawman argument, if you are claiming that the people you are debating with hold all of those views.
If those core tenets are accurately described by you, then you need to quote some kind of authority, to back your own opinion up. Or show where the other people who are posting have said something similar.

Otherwise, you are just demolishing your own strawman.

[pErvinalia]

Well we'd have to see the original arguments (ie thread) to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

[DaveDodo007]

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

With a strawman, you produce an argument that the opposing side are supposed to be making, and then destroy it. But it's usually a false representation of the opposing position, that nobody is actually making. As far as I can see, you haven't misrepresented anybody's actual argument.
But you could be accused of misrepresenting their position by describing their views as misandric.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

Well, that could be construed as a strawman argument, if you are claiming that the people you are debating with hold all of those views.
If those core tenets are accurately described by you, then you need to quote some kind of authority, to back your own opinion up. Or show where the other people who are posting have said something similar.

Otherwise, you are just demolishing your own strawman.

Very thoughtful response and I will reply after others join in.

[DaveDodo007]

Well we'd have to see the original arguments (ie thread) to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Sorry, you're right I should have linked to the disscussion.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... 48871.html

[pErvinalia]

You sound sober. What have you done with the real dd?

[DaveDodo007]

There is a disscussion about this going on in the feedback part of the forum, though if you are banned you wont be able to see it.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 48895.html

[Tero]

I never argue with straw men. I just bring a cigarette lighter from the nearest gas station.

[Rum]

No womens..

[Scott1328]

You not only make strawman arguments, you also make hasty generalizations, circular arguments, make ad-hominem arguments. You commit the genetic fallacy as well.

In other words: you are a poor debater. You would do your position much better by letting others make your argument for you. If you weren't so toxic, I think you would find a few supporters for some of your positions. Nicko, IIRC, actually holds some views similar to yours.

[JimC]

If, when you argue against a particular feminist, or a feminist position, you frequently base your attacks on the more extreme examples of feminist thought in general rather than the particular issue at hand, you may well be criticised for the strawman fallacy.

For example, if I were to attack Seth based on a general critique on extreme libertarianism and gun nuttery, I would...

Hang on, actually I'd be fine...

[Brian Peacock]

[Seth]

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

With a strawman, you produce an argument that the opposing side are supposed to be making, and then destroy it. But it's usually a false representation of the opposing position, that nobody is actually making. As far as I can see, you haven't misrepresented anybody's actual argument.
But you could be accused of misrepresenting their position by describing their views as misandric.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

Well, that could be construed as a strawman argument, if you are claiming that the people you are debating with hold all of those views.
If those core tenets are accurately described by you, then you need to quote some kind of authority, to back your own opinion up. Or show where the other people who are posting have said something similar.

Otherwise, you are just demolishing your own strawman.

It's not a strawman argument to state a claim and then argue it, even if it's not a direct response to someone else's post. That's nothing more than stating an opinion in a different way than the original poster stated it. It's only a strawman argument if you say or imply that the individual to whom you are responding said X, when in fact she said Y.

But to restate or even paraphrase another's argument to reveal a different facet of the argument is not producing a strawman argument. It's simply focusing on a different aspect of the original argument that may be of importance or pertinent to the original claim.

One of the primary requirements of strawman argumentation is that it has to be self-serving and intentional, otherwise it may be nothing more than a misunderstanding or mistaking of the original claim.

Specifically:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[Seth]

I'm being told that my arguments against feminism on rationalskepticism are strawman arguments and this is being used to stifle the disscussion.

My arguments against feminism are twofold:

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

As a split off from the above argument if I'm not allowed to judge feminists on what they say, do, write, act and behave then what criterion am I allowed to judge feminism on.

I don't care if you think feminism is the best thing since sliced bread or my arguments are shit, I just want your opinion on whether they can be classed as strawman arguments.

Well, the short answer is that you are not permitted to question or attack feminism in any form whatsoever, because to do so is heresy and anathema, and you will be pilloried and burned at the stake for your presumption in questioning, challenging or even analyzing feminism, particularly if you don't have a vagina, which is in and of itself sufficient heresy to disqualify you from so much as opening your cake-hole on the subject.

And no, if you're stating a claim with respect to the subjects you mention, and then you are defending that claim, you are NOT producing strawmen. To produce a strawman argument you must misstate or distort the claim of another and then attempt to rebut it as if it were the claim made by the original author.

Thus, if you say "You said X, and therefore Y" when the person actually didn't say X and you are misstating or distorting her argument in order to evade actually addressing X, that's a strawman. But if you say, "You said X, but I say Y, and therefore Z" that is NOT a strawman argument. You are permitted to refer to someone elses original argument as a red herring or any of a large number of other informal fallacies and then describe how it is a fallacy and then re-state the core argument in a manner that is not fallacious and then defend it without it being a strawman argument.

The form would be "You said X, but X is fallacious because A, B and C, therefore the correct claim is Y, and therefore Z."

Just make it clear that you are rejecting the original claim as being logically wrong or inconsistent, preferably by stating the exact form of the informal fallacy, and then be careful to restate it in a way that is not fallacious if you like, and then argue that point.

Mostly I just identify such fallacies (which drives rEv and BG nuts), reject them outright and then provide argumentation as to precisely why their argument is fallacious or specious, and in the process I state a different claim and defend it. That's perfectly proper.

The reason you are getting accused of strawmanning is because there is a religious orthodoxy about feminism which all feminists hold as a priori true and therefore unassailable. When you challenge that orthodoxy, you are violating the Prime Directive of feminism, which is that feminists, and feminist dogma, are infallibly correct and that any challenge to that dogma must therefore be a "distortion" or "misstating" of feminism (usually defended by ad hom resort to positive or negative nature of your sex organs), and therefore any argument you make demolishing what YOU have claimed about feminism is and inexorably be a strawman.

But if YOU make the claim "Feminism says X, therefore Y" you cannot be creating a strawman argument because you are the one who posited the premise, and all you're doing is defending your position on the subject. They claim strawman because you have not, in their opinion, stated X in accordance with their presumptive, a priori orthodoxy with respect to fundamental feminist dogma.

Now, if you state "Feminism says (or does) X, therefore Y" and you are stating a fallacy of your own because that is not in fact what feminism does or says, your opponents are fully justified in describing in what way your interpretation of X is fallacious and supporting their arguments. But it's not going to be a strawman argument unless you are distorting or misstating what someone else claimed about feminism as the basis for your rebuttal. If you make an original claim about feminism, even if it does not comport with feminist orthodoxy, you may be stating a fallacy, but it's not a strawman argument.

[DaveDodo007]

I'm being told that my arguments against feminism on rationalskepticism are strawman arguments and this is being used to stifle the disscussion.

My arguments against feminism are twofold:

That the misandric views of many feminists are allowed to be voiced because they can hide under the umbrella of respectability of many feminists who don't hold those views.

That feminism can be judged by its core tenets that are used in academic feminism, feminist theory and feminism 101. As they are often used as fact in feminist literature, books, essays and articles as well as just voiced in the media. The core tenets that I am focussing on at the moment are: patriarchy theory, rape culture and male privilege.

As a split off from the above argument if I'm not allowed to judge feminists on what they say, do, write, act and behave then what criterion am I allowed to judge feminism on.

I don't care if you think feminism is the best thing since sliced bread or my arguments are shit, I just want your opinion on whether they can be classed as strawman arguments.

Well, the short answer is that you are not permitted to question or attack feminism in any form whatsoever, because to do so is heresy and anathema, and you will be pilloried and burned at the stake for your presumption in questioning, challenging or even analyzing feminism, particularly if you don't have a vagina, which is in and of itself sufficient heresy to disqualify you from so much as opening your cake-hole on the subject.

And no, if you're stating a claim with respect to the subjects you mention, and then you are defending that claim, you are NOT producing strawmen. To produce a strawman argument you must misstate or distort the claim of another and then attempt to rebut it as if it were the claim made by the original author.

Thus, if you say "You said X, and therefore Y" when the person actually didn't say X and you are misstating or distorting her argument in order to evade actually addressing X, that's a strawman. But if you say, "You said X, but I say Y, and therefore Z" that is NOT a strawman argument. You are permitted to refer to someone elses original argument as a red herring or any of a large number of other informal fallacies and then describe how it is a fallacy and then re-state the core argument in a manner that is not fallacious and then defend it without it being a strawman argument.

The form would be "You said X, but X is fallacious because A, B and C, therefore the correct claim is Y, and therefore Z."

Just make it clear that you are rejecting the original claim as being logically wrong or inconsistent, preferably by stating the exact form of the informal fallacy, and then be careful to restate it in a way that is not fallacious if you like, and then argue that point.

Mostly I just identify such fallacies (which drives rEv and BG nuts), reject them outright and then provide argumentation as to precisely why their argument is fallacious or specious, and in the process I state a different claim and defend it. That's perfectly proper.

The reason you are getting accused of strawmanning is because there is a religious orthodoxy about feminism which all feminists hold as a priori true and therefore unassailable. When you challenge that orthodoxy, you are violating the Prime Directive of feminism, which is that feminists, and feminist dogma, are infallibly correct and that any challenge to that dogma must therefore be a "distortion" or "misstating" of feminism (usually defended by ad hom resort to positive or negative nature of your sex organs), and therefore any argument you make demolishing what YOU have claimed about feminism is and inexorably be a strawman.

But if YOU make the claim "Feminism says X, therefore Y" you cannot be creating a strawman argument because you are the one who posited the premise, and all you're doing is defending your position on the subject. They claim strawman because you have not, in their opinion, stated X in accordance with their presumptive, a priori orthodoxy with respect to fundamental feminist dogma.

Now, if you state "Feminism says (or does) X, therefore Y" and you are stating a fallacy of your own because that is not in fact what feminism does or says, your opponents are fully justified in describing in what way your interpretation of X is fallacious and supporting their arguments. But it's not going to be a strawman argument unless you are distorting or misstating what someone else claimed about feminism as the basis for your rebuttal. If you make an original claim about feminism, even if it does not comport with feminist orthodoxy, you may be stating a fallacy, but it's not a strawman argument.

Cheers Seth, that's very helpful.